Technical evaluation panel summary report: ceramic and glass immobilization options fissile materials disposition program

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Description

This report documents the results of a technical evaluation of the merits of ceramic and glass immobilization forms for the disposition of surplus weapons-useable plutonium. The evaluation was conducted by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), whose members were selected to cover a relevant range of scientific and technical expertise and represented each of the technical organizations involved in the Plutonium Immobilization Program. The TEP held a formal review at Lawrence Liver-more National Laboratory (LLNL) from July 2%August 1, 1997. Following this review, the TEP documented the review and its evaluation of the two immobilization technologies in this report to provide ... continued below

Physical Description

15 Megabytes

Creation Information

Jostons, A; Armantrout, G; Brummond, W; Jantzen, CM; M; McKibben et al. December 23, 1997.

Context

This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided by UNT Libraries Government Documents Department to Digital Library, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. More information about this report can be viewed below.

Who

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this report or its content.

Publisher

Provided By

UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Serving as both a federal and a state depository library, the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department maintains millions of items in a variety of formats. The department is a member of the FDLP Content Partnerships Program and an Affiliated Archive of the National Archives.

Contact Us

What

Descriptive information to help identify this report. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Digital Library.

Description

This report documents the results of a technical evaluation of the merits of ceramic and glass immobilization forms for the disposition of surplus weapons-useable plutonium. The evaluation was conducted by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), whose members were selected to cover a relevant range of scientific and technical expertise and represented each of the technical organizations involved in the Plutonium Immobilization Program. The TEP held a formal review at Lawrence Liver-more National Laboratory (LLNL) from July 2%August 1, 1997. Following this review, the TEP documented the review and its evaluation of the two immobilization technologies in this report to provide a technical basis for a recommendation by LLNL to the Department of Energy (DOE) for the preferred immobilization form. The comparison of the glass and ceramic forms and manufacturing processes was a tremendous challenge to the TEP. The two forms and their processes are similar in many ways. The TEP went to great effort to accurately assess what were, in many cases, fine details of the processes, unit operations, and the glass and ceramic forms themselves. The set of criteria used by the Fissile Materials Disposition Program (FMDP) in past screenings and down-selections was used to measure-the two options. One exception is that the TEP did not consider criteria that were largely nontechnical (namely international impact, public acceptance, and effects on other : DOE programs). The TEP� s measures and assessments are documented in detail. Care was taken to ensure that the data used were well documented and traceable to their source. Although no final conclusion regarding the preferred form was reached or explicitly stated in this report (this was not within the TEP� s charter), no �show stoppers� were identified for either form. Both forms appear capable of satisfying all the criteria, as interpreted by the TEP. The TEP identified a number of distinct and quantifiable differences between the forms for several of the criteria. These differences ranged from insignificant to moderate, depending on the specific criterion and the context in which it was applied. No summary statement regarding the overall superiority of either form is presented here, as that would imply a weighting of the various criteria, a judgment the TEP was instructed to avoid. This judgment is deferred to the assessment and peer review that will follow this evaluation. The decision to select one form over another will, of course, require the consideration of many additional factors beyond the technical criteria, including the nontechnical criteria, constraints, and policy issues, all of which were outside the scope of this review.

Physical Description

15 Megabytes

Language

Item Type

Identifier

Unique identifying numbers for this report in the Digital Library or other systems.

  • Other: DE00008030
  • Report No.: UCRL-ID-129315
  • Grant Number: W-7405-Eng-48
  • DOI: 10.2172/8030 | External Link
  • Office of Scientific & Technical Information Report Number: 8030
  • Archival Resource Key: ark:/67531/metadc737255

Collections

This report is part of the following collection of related materials.

Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports

Reports, articles and other documents harvested from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information.

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) is the Department of Energy (DOE) office that collects, preserves, and disseminates DOE-sponsored research and development (R&D) results that are the outcomes of R&D projects or other funded activities at DOE labs and facilities nationwide and grantees at universities and other institutions.

What responsibilities do I have when using this report?

When

Dates and time periods associated with this report.

Creation Date

  • December 23, 1997

Added to The UNT Digital Library

  • Oct. 19, 2015, 7:39 p.m.

Description Last Updated

  • May 6, 2016, 11:08 p.m.

Usage Statistics

When was this report last used?

Yesterday: 0
Past 30 days: 0
Total Uses: 1

Interact With This Report

Here are some suggestions for what to do next.

Start Reading

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

International Image Interoperability Framework

IIF Logo

We support the IIIF Presentation API

Jostons, A; Armantrout, G; Brummond, W; Jantzen, CM; M; McKibben et al. Technical evaluation panel summary report: ceramic and glass immobilization options fissile materials disposition program, report, December 23, 1997; Livermore, California. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc737255/: accessed September 24, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.